/m/orioles

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I don't know what video is in the link, but on At Bat's highlight you get about a minute from each broadcast. And of course Kay, in describing what happened between innings to Yankees fans, says Showalter "charged!" the Yankee dugout.

This is another one of those unwritten rules that confuses me. I thought stealing signs (assuming you're not using a telescope from behind CF) was expected and a normal part of the game. Isn't that why catchers change their signs with men on base? Isn't that why base coaches have complicated routines for communicating with base runners?

Billy Ripken: If the Orioles were stealing signs, they were doing a pretty crappy job of it because they swung at a lot of bad pitches.
Tom Verducci: If anything, it's Austin Romine's fault. He needs to put down the signs where the third base coach can't see them, and wait longer to move into position so that he's not giving away location.

I could understand why someone would hate Buck Showalter. He has a bit of a persecution complex and isn't shy about sharing it. But he's also pretty genuine and loves his players and team, and he's one of those guys you love when he's on your side.

Girardi has some of the same negative qualities, but I just can't wrap my head around why even Yankee fans would like him. He just seems like a prickly whiner virtually every time he faces the Orioles.

Re 12: I've never understood why stealing signs is considered a bad thing.. This is the big leagues, guys...if your signs are so stealable, then you're doing it wrong.

But in this case was it stealing signs or signaling the position of Romine's glove? Those are two different violations with two different unwritten codes, as evidenced by the fact that it's considered a major breach if the batter tries to sneak a peak behind him to see whether the pitch is being directed outside or inside, or up or down.

I was never sure why it was considered a major breach for the batter to sneak a peek behind him.

I think it's an issue that there is very little the catcher can do to hide that. The signs can be hidden (as Verducci noted) or changed up but the catcher has to eventually put the glove in a spot for the pitcher to throw to. As you note catchers can, and in fact do, change position but I think that's the genesis of the unwritten rule.

I was never sure why it was considered a major breach for the batter to sneak a peek behind him.

I think it's an issue that there is very little the catcher can do to hide that. The signs can be hidden (as Verducci noted) or changed up but the catcher has to eventually put the glove in a spot for the pitcher to throw to. As you note catchers can, and in fact do, change position but I think that's the genesis of the unwritten rule.

Correct. And the standard response to that sort of violation has been to prearrange it so that the catcher positions his glove low and outside, knowing in advance the the next pitch will be a heater thrown high and inside. That usually solves the problem, and it's why enforcement is seldom necessary.

There was a football counterpart to this sort of payback in the days before face masks. When a defensive linebacker clawed the quarterback's face one time too many, on a prearranged signal the offensive line would let the offender rush the passer unobstructed, whereupon the offender would get a face full of football. Sammy Baugh did this once, and for some reason never had to do it again.

When a defensive linebacker clawed the quarterback's face one time too many, on a prearranged signal the offensive line would let the offender rush the passer unobstructed, whereupon the offender would get a face full of football. Sammy Baugh did this once, and for some reason never had to do it again.

As opposed to an offensive linebacker? And what about defensive linemen? Were they exempted from Baugh's wrath? Or were they instead given The Longest Yard* Treatment?

When a defensive linebacker clawed the quarterback's face one time too many, on a prearranged signal the offensive line would let the offender rush the passer unobstructed, whereupon the offender would get a face full of football. Sammy Baugh did this once, and for some reason never had to do it again.

As opposed to an offensive linebacker? And what about defensive linemen?

As opposed to an offensive linebacker? And what about defensive linemen?

Of course I meant any defensive player. Sorry if I confused you.

To be fair, there are cases where you need to stipulate that the lineback is a defensive player. I played linebacker in high school in such a way that I'm not sure it was possible to describe me as a "defensive player".

@38: Reminds me of the story I heard where Sammy Baugh was really sick and tired of this certain guy roughing him around, so in a game where it so happened that the outcome of the contest was already long-decided, Sammy, on a pre-arranged signal on fourth down deep in his own territory, punted the football right into the guys's face.

Sammy Baugh did this once, and for some reason never had to do it again.

I've read the story in many places over the years, most likely in an old issue of SPORT and / or in more than one Shirley Povich column. But here's an online reference I found, and here's the relevant quote:

Not only was Baugh accurate he was also supremely confident in himself. During Baugh’s rookie season Redskins coach Ray Flaherty was outlining a pass pattern on a chalkboard and he told Baugh, “When the receiver reaches here, you hit him in the eye with the ball.” Baugh shot back deadpan, “which eye?”

(Baugh wasn’t joking about hitting a player in the eye. Late in his career when he was a living legend, Baugh was given a cheap-shot hit by an opposing rookie defensive lineman. Baugh admonished the rookie to take it easy whereupon the impertinent rookie gave Baugh another cheap-shot on the very next play. Baugh told his linemen to let the rookie through on the next play—which they did—whereupon Baugh threw a line-drive pass that hit the rookie right between the eyes and knocked him out—remember football fans they didn’t wear face masks in those days).

I've heard Andy's story also describing the antics of Bobby Layne and Norm Van Brocklin--so, it's one of those stories that's been around for decades.

I vaguely recall hearing the Van Brocklin story, but not Layne's, though it would have been in equal character for him to have done something like that. I wish he'd done it to Ed Meadows, though by that point virtually everyone but Layne was wearing a face mask.

OTOH sometimes perhaps a guilty conscience is the best revenge. The dirtiest play that Layne ever suffered was when the Meadows cold cocked him at the start of a Bears-Lions game that was to decide the 1956 Western Conference championship, giving him a concussion, and the Bears went on to win the game before getting destroyed by the Giants in the championship.

But Meadows never lived down his reputation as a dirty player, and in 1974 he stuck a shotgun in his own chest and pulled the trigger. Few people mourned him.

If it's not in PFB-Reference in the form of a statistic, it must not have happened.

No, if the cite has no details, I'm skeptical it happened, or suspicious it might be heavily embellished:

"Late in his career when he was a living legend, Baugh was given a cheap-shot hit by an opposing rookie defensive lineman. Baugh admonished the rookie to take it easy whereupon the impertinent rookie gave Baugh another cheap-shot on the very next play. Baugh told his linemen to let the rookie through on the next play—which they did—whereupon Baugh threw a line-drive pass that hit the rookie right between the eyes and knocked him out"

Why doesn't it just say when and where and to whom it happened, if indeed it did? The fact that Jmac says he heard the story about other old timey
QB's adds to my reluctance to take the story too seriously. Its a good story. I actually hope its true.

Teddy, I'll be glad to take this further, but first I'm going to have to see your original birth certificate, notarized and certified by the president of the Jimmy Fund.

Or alternately, you can just remain skeptical, and the world will keep spinning on its axis in spite of its burden. But in the days before the rules protected quarterbacks, they often had to take matters in their own hands, and it wouldn't surprise me if more than three of them tried the Baugh method of retaliation. What made Baugh stand out was that he actually hit his target.

C'mon Andy, just admit that the story might be made-up. Like I said, I hope its true, but it seems a bit too cute. Reminds me of that old
"One time...Hornsby hit a line drive HR to center that went between the pitcher's legs and just kept rising" bit.

You saw him break-in with the Redskins, was Sammy as good as they say?

C'mon Andy, just admit that the story might be made-up. Like I said, I hope its true, but it seems a bit too cute. Reminds me of that old
"One time...Hornsby hit a line drive HR to center that went between the pitcher's legs and just kept rising" bit.

Anything's possible, but it's been repeated by too many credible sources that I've seen over the years for me not to believe it, and it certainly dovetails with the NFL culture of the time, which was even more violent than it is today, with no damning video evidence of deliberate mayhem instantly available to punish violations made out of the referees' view. The NFL uber-historian Dan Daly would probably the best final judge on the matter.

You saw him break-in with the Redskins, was Sammy as good as they say?

Love it! Though actually the first Redskins game I ever went to was in Baugh's last year (1952), when Eddie LeBaron had replaced him as the starting QB. As I was only 8 at the time and not 23, all I remember about that game is that I was sitting in the upper deck around the 20 yard line and that the Giants won. I'm not even sure that Baugh got in the game at all.

Of course it's impossible to compare Baugh to a modern quarterback (he was actually a tailback before the Skins adopted the T), but he certainly stood out among his contemporaries, and on occasion even performed very well as a DB and punter. There's a credible case to be made that Baugh was the best all-around player in NFL history, although obviously since the total dominance of the two platoon system came along there wouldn't have been any future competition for that honor.

Ah, that explains why you get to spend so much time here, since the TCM Administrator monitors their forums and has never uttered a peep against home recording, which is openly discussed on those same forums every day.